Fisher v. Texas and the Reasons Why Liberals and Conservatives on the Supreme Court Don’t Trust Each Other on Affirmative Action: Part Two in a Two-Part Series of Columns

My most recent column for Justia’s Verdict, Part One in this series, began to look at issues raised by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant review in the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case. There I discussed some of the ways in which both the so-called liberal and the so-called conservative Justices have come across as less than completely intellectually honest in many of the substantive votes they have cast on the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action, contributing to a mutual distrust among the groups of Justices on the subject. In the present column, I continue developing this theme of intellectual (in)consistency, this time focusing less on the outcomes that the Court or various of its Justices have reached, and more on the questions of how the Court should decide these cases—that is, what methodology should be used in these cases—and, indeed, whether the Court should have been willing to decide some of these cases at all.

The “How” Question: Why Has There Been No Sustained Discussion of the Use of Originalist Methodology in the Affirmative Action Cases?

For about a generation, the conservatives on the Court have been arguing for originalism, a particular approach to constitutional interpretation that seeks to understand and apply the text of the document as “intelligent and informed people of the time” of enactment would have. Justice Antonin Scalia, the American jurist most often associated with the development of originalism in recent American jurisprudence, has explained that originalism seeks to construe the Constitution’s text “reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.” Under originalism, the meaning that counts is “the original meaning of the text”—”how the text of the Constitution was originally understood” by interpreters of the day.

Originalism in some form is a very attractive idea. Yet throughout the modern affirmative action cases over the last generation, the most conservative Justices have never really explained how their view that government cannot use race in any way whatsoever—that the Constitution is “color-blind,” so to speak—can be squared with the fact that the very same Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment did, in fact, use race-based programs to help African Americans.

Consider the Parents Involved ruling from 2007, which I discussed in Part One of this series, and which tested the validity of race-based pupil assignments employed to promote high school integration in Seattle and Kentucky. In that decision, Justice Breyer, in dissent, finally began to call out the color-blind-Constitution Justices on this point, reminding observers that the federal government, even in the Nineteenth Century, at times offered relief to all African Americans, and not just newly freed slaves. Justice Thomas, the most ardent color-blind-Constitution Justice and also a staunch proponent of Scalian originalism, had only this to say by way of response:

“The dissent half-heartedly attacks the historical underpinnings of the color-blind Constitution. . . . What the dissent fails to understand, however, is that the color-blind Constitution does not bar the government from taking measures to remedy past state-sponsored discrimination–indeed, it requires that such measures be taken in certain circumstances. Race-based government measures during the 1860’s and 1870’s to remedy state-enforced slavery were therefore not inconsistent with the color-blind Constitution.”

Justice Thomas’s comment here is, from what I can tell, the most elaborate explanation that originalists have offered about originalism and the “color-blind Constitution.” And it is far from enough. Why? Because the programs at issue in the 1800s extended beyond former slaves to other African Americans, and thus could not be easily characterized as surgically redressing slavery. And also because Justice Thomas does not address the fact that slavery was not illegal until 1866, when the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment made it so. If the government has the authority to use race to rectify slavery (which was not illegal when maintained), why can’t the government as a more general matter use race to rectify racial problems (such as de facto segregation) that also go beyond past state lawlessness?

There may be plausible originalist responses to my questions, but it’s hard to know, because the color-blind-Constitution Justices simply haven’t made any. Indeed, they haven’t applied originalism to affirmative action at all. Nor have they explained why they haven’t.

The “Whether to Decide” Questions: Issues of Standing in Affirmative Action Cases

In the 1975 Supreme Court case of Warth v. Seldin, various individuals and organizations had sued the Town of Penfield, New York, alleging that the town’s zoning ordinance excluded persons of low and moderate income from living there, in violation of the plaintiffs’ rights under, among other provisions, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The question of whether governmental discrimination, overt or tacit, against the poor (who also frequently happened to be persons of color) violated the Constitution was indeed a thorny one. But the Court determined that it didn’t need to reach that prickly issue, because none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue. (Standing is the right, based on the facts of one’s situation, to bring a particular case to court.)

What about the plaintiffs who seemed to be the most likely to have standing, the low-income persons who said they wanted to live in Penfield? The Court said that these folks lacked standing because their injury—the inability to live in Penfield—was not caused by the municipal defendant, insofar as even if Penfield rewrote its zoning laws to encourage more low-income housing, the particular plaintiffs before the Court still couldn’t afford to live there. It was the harsh economic market—not Penfield’s laws—that was causing these particular challengers to live elsewhere. Because there was no causation, there was no standing.

Fast forward to 1993, when the Court decided Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville. There, non-minority contractors alleged that they would have bid on construction work that was set aside for minority contractors, but could not due to their race. The contractors were challenging the requirement that 10% of city contracts be awarded to minority-owned businesses. The problem, however, was that even absent the set-aside program, the particular challengers still would not have been awarded any contracts—their bids would have been uncompetitive even in the absence of the affirmative action program. In other words, the challengers would have lost out to other non-minority companies. It was the existence of these other non-minority bidders, and not the set-aside program, that caused the plaintiffs to lose out on the contracts. But the Court said that in equal protection cases like these, the relevant injury is not the denial of the benefit itself, but the denial of equal treatment that is imposed by a discriminatory barrier to obtaining a benefit. Or, put another way, the injury is the inability to compete on an equal footing in the bidding process. So the challengers had standing even if they would never have been awarded the contracts.

The Court admitted some “tension” between its decision and the ruling in Warth, but with a few sentences of elaboration the Court deemed the tension “minimal.”

Associated General Contractors, then, recognizes that a constitutional equal protection injury can consist of unfair treatment in a selection process even if the ultimate benefit sought would not be forthcoming. In addition to its inconsistency with Warth, the decision is also hard to square with a case that was decided eight years later, Lesage v. University of Texas. In Lesage, the Court held that a challenger to a UT race-based affirmative action plan who would have been denied admission even in the absence of the plan could not recover anything from the University, which means that the injury consisting of unfair procedural treatment has no monetary value.

Should We Anticipate More Procedural Innovation/Manipulation From the Court in the Fisher Case?

A close cousin of standing rules—the mootness doctrine—may figure prominently in the Fisher affirmative action case that is now pending at the Court. The plaintiff in Fisher (who was once one of two plaintiffs, but now is the only one left) applied to UT as a freshman and was denied admission. She then filed suit in federal court challenging UT’s race-based admissions criteria, but at the same time enrolled in another college. In her Complaint, she asked for a declaration that she was entitled to have her UT application considered without regard to race; an injunction (a court order) directing UT to consider admitting her without regard to race (on the premise that she would transfer to UT if admitted); and money damages “in the form of” a refund of her admissions application fee (on the theory that her application had not been processed fairly, and therefore she was entitled to get her money back.)

But here’s the (or at least a) big wrinkle. Since it took a while for her case to be resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which ruled in UT’s favor on the merits), she’s now no longer interested in transferring to UT (given that she’s already a senior at her current college). So her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are no longer alive; in legal parlance, they are moot. But what about her small monetary refund claim (for a sum total of roughly $100)?

In opposing Supreme Court review a few months ago, UT told the Court that if the Justices were to grant review, UT could simply offer to refund plaintiff the $100, thereby mooting the damage claim too! So, argued UT, it would be a waste of time for the Court to grant review, only to have to dismiss the case before deciding it.

That is a very interesting argument. If UT follows through on its threat and makes a tender of $100 (or a bit more, just to be on the safe side), what will/can the Court do? Perhaps it will dismiss the case as moot; by granting review, perhaps it wanted to at least force UT make the tender, which, if it moots the case, would also erase (vacate) the Fifth Circuit ruling that some conservative Justices don’t like.

But it seems more likely a majority of the Justices think that they have found a way to keep the case alive. There are a number of possibilities as to how they might do so, including (though not limited to): (1) rejecting the tender as too manipulative; (2) holding that the plaintiff implicitly requested in her Complaint (or may amend her suit to request) more extensive damages for not having been able to attend UT; and (3) holding that the plaintiff implicitly requested nominal damages and that such nominal damage claims cannot be mooted with a tender that is unaccompanied by an admission of liability. Yet each of these three options involves significant tension past decisions and/or actions in earlier Court cases.

Thus, many legal analysts are anxious to see if, and how, the Court can get past the procedural hurdles it has erected in many other settings to reach this latest affirmative action dispute on the merits.

Vikram David Amar, a Justia columnist, is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School, and a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook, and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Let me say this, your sister, is being held captive, by no good, Legal Operators, who prey upon your fathers, legal ignorance.. Not only do they keep her, and she is not ok, against her will, in declaration of what is in her best interest.. Of Course, It is.. The state of California is paying her, adoptive mother, $1000.00 per month. just to care for her… It is in her best benefit… Why dont they give this to her parents? Instead, make cheryl H. richer.., make sandra Day happier, and piss your father, Off..

Yeah..

Anonymous

“Originalists” are generally textualists first: That is, what they want is for courts to follow the original meaning of legal texts, like the Constitution but also statutes. So the way a textualist would decide a case like Fisher is by looking first to the relevant statutory texts (no point in deciding the case on constitutional grounds if a statute is available). And Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that, if you get federal money (which UT does) then you can’t “discriminat[e]” against any individual on the basis of race, color, or national origin (which UT does). That should be the end of the case. Now, the Court decided in Bakke that Title VI doesn’t mean what it says, which is why we are now arguing about compelling interests and the like, but that wasn’t the fault of originalism/textualism.

And as for the text of the Constitution, there was more (and more recent) racial inequality when it was ratified than there is now, yet it does not distinguish between the protection it affords different racial groups — to the contrary, it makes it illegal to deny “equal protection” to any individual. The best originalist discussion of the “privileges or immunities” clause likewise concludes the it protects all groups from discrimination. See John Harrison, “Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause,” 101 Yale L.J. 1385, 1462-1464 (1992). Thus, those who would interpret the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to bless racial discrimination by state universities have a tough row to hoe.

Baker

I for one can’t wait to see what the court says in Fisher! I’ve been reading all times of articles on the cases the court will have to rely on. Despite all I’ve read, I can’t get around that the court should never have offered a ruing in Bakke, so now I don’t know what the Court will do.

Vikram Amar rejoined the UC Davis Law School (where he was a faculty member from 1993-1998) in 2007, after teaching at UC Hastings for a decade. He has also taught regularly as a Visiting Professor at… more.

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar and guest columnist and dean of UC Davis law school Kevin R. Johnson offer five ways in which law students might better use the U.S. News law school rankings... more

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the current controversy in Alabama over whether state court judges must issue same-sex marriage licenses pursuant to an order to a federal district... more

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion of the Arizona redistricting commission case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Amar considers both the question of standing... more

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar evaluates the merits of the arguments of the Arizona legislature in its Supreme Court challenge to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Continue... more

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion on how federalism cuts against the challengers to the Obamacare statute in King v. Burwell. In this second of a two-part series,... more

U.C. Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—upholding Obamacare as a proper exercise... more

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how Arizona’s Proposition 122 addresses not only federalism concerns but also serves as an intra-state reorganization of power. Continue reading... more

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a case the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this Term regarding the so-called nondelegation doctrine. Amar argues that the Court should uphold the... more